Lambeth Council (202338474)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338474

Lambeth Council

18 November 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1.             The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), specifically noise nuisance from her neighbour.

2.             The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3.             The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives in a one-bedroom ground-floor flat. The resident has mental health conditions.

4.             At the time of the complaint, the neighbour in question lived above the resident in a one-bedroom flat.

5.             In September 2022, the local authority placed 3 children into the neighbour’s care, which coincided with increased noise nuisance reports made by the resident.

6.             In October 2022, the neighbour and the resident were asked to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA) but did not. This followed allegations and counter-allegations made by both parties.

7.             Between December 2022 and August 2023, the resident reported noise nuisance, specifically screaming, banging, pets in the flat, and children fighting. Some noise nuisance was reported to have taken place during unsociable hours (22:30, 00:04, 01:00, and 02:00). The resident reported having to leave her flat, being exhausted, and being stressed. This was supported by a letter from the resident’s counsellor in February 2023 stating that the resident presented with anxiety and stress, which impacted her mental health.

8.             In August 2023, the resident contacted her Member of Parliament (MP) regarding ongoing noise nuisance. The MP subsequently contacted the landlord, confirmed the negative impact the situation was having on the resident, and requested an update on the case. The landlord responded that both parties had been referred to its legal team for injunctions as counter-allegations had been made about the resident. The landlord said that the case did not meet the proportionality and equality test, and further evidence was required before proceeding.

9.             The landlord was evidently engaged with the LA about the neighbour and was considering various options to try to resolve the ongoing situation.

10.        The resident contacted us in May 2024, and we requested that the landlord provide her with a formal response to her complaint. The landlord confirmed that, having addressed several inquiries from the MP and noted the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction, it would issue her a final response to the complaint.

11.        On 10 May 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 (final review) response and confirmed that while mediation had been offered, the resident had refused it. It had served a NOSP on the neighbour, and the matter was with its legal team for a possession claim.

12.        The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and requested that we investigate her complaint. She informed us that her neighbour moved out of the flat in September 2024. Additionally, she is seeking an apology from the landlord for how her reports were handled and compensation for the distress and inconvenience she reports to have experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13.        This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, broadly reflected in the above timeline. The resident has reported ASB since 2021.

14.        Our investigation can be time-limited in relation to when a complaint was brought to the landlord’s attention. This assessment is, therefore, focused on events from October 2022 onwards. This is the date from which the resident raised new reports of ASB from her neighbour, which led to her complaint to her MP in August 2023.

15.        The resident has stated that the noise nuisance has impacted her mental health. We do not doubt the resident’s comments about her mental health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot assess the effect of any action or inaction by the landlord on the resident’s health and if the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she should seek independent legal advice.

16.        We have considered how the landlord responded to the reports of noise nuisance and whether this was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Landlord’s policies and obligations

17.        The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will prevent and minimise the risk of ASB before it occurs and resolve instances of ASB as early as possible through timely and appropriate intervention. It also says that behaviours that do not constitute ASB include, but are not limited to, day-to-day living noise, which is not excessive nor unreasonable, babies crying, children playing, and noise transference due to poor sound insulation. When it receives an ASB complaint that relates to one of the above, it will consider the experience of and the impact on the victim and the action that it takes will be proportionate.

18.        The landlord’s tenancy handbook states that noise is the most common cause of neighbour disputes, and it will try to resolve issues as speedily as possible. It explains that this may mean working in partnership with other agencies, including environmental health, local authorities, and community groups. The handbook also guides residents on how to be considerate neighbours.

19.        The landlord’s tenancy enforcement policy confirms that it will use prevention and intervention measures, such as mediation and ABA’s to tackle ASB.

Assessment

20.        This situation has clearly been distressing for the resident, who remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, specifically noise nuisance.

21.        It is important to recognise that managing cases involving ongoing reports and counter-allegations can be very challenging for a landlord. The unique circumstances of this case have added complexity to the landlord’s efforts in handling the situation.

22.        In October 2022 the landlord created an ABA and sent it to both the neighbour following allegations of noise disturbances. This was a reasonable preventive measure in line with the landlord’s tenancy enforcement and ASB policies aimed at addressing reported instances of ASB. Although the landlord could not enforce the signing of the ABA by either party, drafting the agreement demonstrated a commitment to resolving the issue and preventing it from escalating.

23.        Between 24 and 31 December 2022, the resident reported noise nuisance, specifically screaming, shouting and banging, some of which occurred at 01:00, which had left her exhausted. Up until 30 December 2022, the resident had noise monitoring equipment installed. The equipment’s purpose is to record noise levels to support the resident’s documented accounts of the disturbances she has been experiencing. However, the specific outcomes and findings from these noise recordings are unclear. There is no evidence of the results or whether they were communicated to the resident, which she said left her uncertain about potential next steps to resolve the noise nuisance.

24.        The resident reported ongoing noise disturbances throughout January and February 2023. However, there is insufficient evidence showing that the landlord took action to acknowledge or address these reports. This lack of response, particularly the failure to assess the situation in accordance with the ASB procedures, is concerning and reinforced the resident’s perception that her concerns were being ignored.

25.        The landlord acted in accordance with its ASB and tenancy enforcement policy by utilising intervention methods such as mediation. Mediation is a recognised approach for resolving neighbour disputes, particularly those related to lifestyle issues. This process enables both parties to understand each other’s perspectives and work towards a mutually agreed-upon solution. It can effectively maintain positive neighbourhood relationships, as highlighted in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report—A time to be Heard.

26.        There is evidence that mediation had been previously offered but not accepted. Both the resident and the landlord have disputed the reasons for this. However, since the offer was not taken up, it was beyond the landlord’s control. While the landlord’s records indicate that mediation was offered again in February 2022, we have not seen any correspondence with the resident regarding this offer. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the resident was properly informed about reconsidering the option.

27.        Between May and June 2023, the resident reported banging. Notably, some of these disturbances occurred during unsociable hours, specifically after 22:30, which she said affected her peace and quiet during the night. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to these reports. This was not appropriate or in accordance with its ASB policy.

28.        The resident expressed frustration that the landlord had not provided noise monitoring equipment despite her request 5 months earlier. Although monitoring equipment had been installed before, the landlord should have explained why it would not be provided again and what evidence the resident could gather to support her claims. This lack of communication increased her feelings of frustration and neglect. The limited acknowledgement of her reports between January and June 2023 exacerbated her frustration.

29.        Throughout her correspondence with the landlord, she explained the impact that the noise had on her and, at points, stated that she felt compelled to leave her property. Although the landlord’s ASB policy confirms a victim-centred approach to assessing the full impact of ASB, there is no evidence that a risk assessment was conducted. The landlord failed to recognise that the impact on the resident was detrimental. No evidence was seen that the landlord understood that noise was triggering for her and her mental health conditions, and it was not empathetic to her experience.

30.        Despite referring the matter to its legal department for consideration in June 2023, there is no evidence to show that the resident was told how long the process could take or the potential outcomes. We have been unable to determine when the legal team decided not to pursue an injunction after concluding that the case would not meet the proportionality and equality test. Although pursuing legal action was not considered viable, the landlord should have provided clearer guidance on alternative options available to the resident.

31.        We recognise the situation’s complexity and can see that between May and September 2023, the landlord made several attempts to liaise with the LA to address issues related to the neighbour. Some delays in resolving the problem were beyond the landlord’s control.

32.        The evidence indicates that the landlord informed the LA in September 2023 of its intention to initiate proceedings against the neighbour. However, despite receiving no “positive response” from the LA, the Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) was still not served by 29 February 2024. It is unclear why there was a 5-month delay in progressing the order.

33.        In December 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour did not have adequate flooring, contributing to the noise transference. The landlord has indicated that the flat had appropriate flooring, including underlay and carpet, but the resident has disputed this. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints encourages landlords to take practical steps to reduce noise transference by offering practical solutions such as ensuring the carpet is not removed and fitting anti-vibration mats. Since the resident contested the adequacy of the flooring, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have communicated with the resident when it had inspected the flat and that it deemed the flooring to be appropriate and not a contributing factor to the noise.

34.        The landlord’s ASB procedure states that an action plan will be created involving both parties. The evidence suggests that the landlord first mentioned an action plan in a meeting on 4 December 2023, over a year after the noise was reported. It was unreasonable that an action plan was not agreed upon earlier to manage the resident’s expectations, agree on communication methods and frequency and help set realistic outcomes. Consequently, the resident reported that actions were not completed, and follow-up meetings were not arranged, which caused unnecessary distress for the resident, prompting her to contact her MP again in February 2024.

35.        Warning letters were sent to the neighbour in January 2024 following further complaints of stomping, shouting and banging. However, the evidence shows that despite previous warning letters, the noise continued. During this time, the landlord continued to request the help of the LA to explore options regarding the neighbour’s situation.

36.        In its stage 2 response on 10 May 2024, the landlord confirmed that the NOSP had been served and that the matter was with its legal department to claim possession of the property. Despite this confirmation, the landlord did not provide the resident with any projected timeline for the legal process, leaving her in an uncertain position. As a result, the resident continued to experience noise nuisance without indicating when or if the situation would be resolved, causing more distress and frustration.

37.        In summary, the landlord failed to follow its ASB procedure by not completing a risk assessment. In not doing so, it failed to consider the impact the situation had on the mental health of the resident. It also failed to manage the case in line with its ASB procedures and did not produce an action plan to include regular clear communication about the status of the case. It is concerning that the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s noise reports. The landlord did not follow its own procedure and failed to manage the resident’s expectations effectively.

38.        We have considered compensation in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance where the landlord failed to address the resident’s detriment and did little to put things right. Therefore, we have ordered that the landlord pay £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over a prolonged period.

39.        We understand that the neighbour moved from the address in September 2024, and the ASB case has been closed. Therefore, no further orders have been made regarding this.

Complaint handling

40.        According to the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), residents should not be required to use the term “complaint” for the landlord to recognise their concern as such. This principle applies to how member enquiries are managed. While it is acknowledged that not every member enquiry will necessarily constitute a complaint, any expression of dissatisfaction articulated within a member enquiry must be regarded as a complaint. The landlord must respond to these enquiries in accordance with the established complaints process set out in the Code.

41.        On 29 August 2023, the MP contacted the landlord about the resident’s ongoing noise complaint affecting her quality of life. While we have not seen the landlord’s response to the MP, the MP acknowledged that the landlord was taking action against the neighbour. It is unclear if the landlord directly responded to the resident following the MP’s involvement. Given the mention of ongoing complaints, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to clarify if the resident wanted to submit a formal complaint or was referring to her ASB reports.

42.        On two occasions—4 December 2023 and 16 January 2024—the resident expressed dissatisfaction with how the landlord handled her ASB case. She felt ignored and noted that promised actions had not been completed, which added to her dissatisfaction. The landlord missed a further opportunity to seek clarification on whether the resident wished to submit a formal complaint.

43.        The resident contacted her MP again to follow up on her situation, which led to a second intervention on 19 February 2024. She also contacted our service, prompting us to request a formal response from the landlord by 10 May 2024.

44.        The resident spent time and effort to receive a formal complaint response. However, when the stage 2 response was issued, it merely repeated information already provided to the resident. This indicates that the landlord did not conduct a thorough investigation, which is essential for effective dispute resolution.

45.        Furthermore, the response lacked empathy for the resident’s lived experience and did not adequately address her concerns, indicating a missed opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate understanding and support.

46.        The landlord did not apologise for failing to provide a formal response to the resident in a timely manner or acknowledge any shortcomings in its handling of the complaint. According to its compensation policy, compensation may be awarded for service failures, including unjustifiable delays and failure to comply with the landlord’s policies.

47.        As a result, we have reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance and ordered the landlord to pay £150 for the time and trouble the resident spent obtaining a response that failed to address her concerns.

48.        In this investigation, we identified failures similar to those that led to our special report in 2022 and the subsequent inspection in 2023. Consequently, we have ordered the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation and the recommendations from our inspection report in December 2023.

Determination

49.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s resorts of ASB, specifically noise nuisance from her neighbour.

50.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

51.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.

b.     Pay the resident compensation of £400, which comprises:

1. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused due to the landlord’s failings in handling the resident’s reports of ASB, specifically noise nuisance.
2. £150 for the time and delay caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
3. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed unless the resident states otherwise.

Recommendation

52.        The landlord should consider if it needs to re-assess itself against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise complaints report and ensure it complies with the recommendations in the report.

53.        The landlord should update us on its intentions regarding the recommendation within 4 weeks.